Before 9/11, Pervez Musharraf was known as General Musharraf, the military dictator of Pakistan. Assessing which way the wind was blowing, or maybe after being told by Richard Armitage that he would be "bombed into the stone age," Musharraf decided he didn't want to end up like the Taliban and lined up with the U.S. as an ally in the Global War on Terror. Sometime after Daisy Cutters started falling on Tora Bora, President Bush started calling him "President Musharraf." 

Musharraf's assistance, whether it was halfhearted or not, was given at some political risk to him, and granted him a pass on the dictator issue. After a doubious election, sacking of the supreme court, and imprisoning lawyers though, the Bush administration and state department came around to refering to him for what he really is again, a military dictator. George Bush himself said he can't be the leader of Pakistan's military and the president at the same time, "I told him he needs to take of his uniform and hold fair elections."

I couldn't help but think of Bush and his his Bill Pullman, Independence Day moment where he donned a flight suit and hopped out of a harrier jet. If the President of the United States of America is also the Commander in Chief of the armed forces, how is he different from the man who calls himself general and president? Usually the closest thing to a uniform you see the POTUS where is that leather bomber jacket they get, but the important thing to remember is that the president can authorize military action anywhere at any time with the caveat that if such military action is to last more than 90 days the president must then seek the approval of congress to continue. The last time I heard the 90 day limit mentioned though was back in the Clinton wag the dog era. The constitution is supposed to protect us from having a proper military dictator. Military personnel swear an oath to uphold and defend the constitution, not an oath to the president. After the last 7 years, the limits to executive orders of military force seemed to be blurred.

Considering this, shouldn't we be looking for a new Commander in Chief threshold? If we're serious about ending the war, shouldn't we be serious about wanting a president that leads first with the olive branch and second with the arrows? Presidents that preside over wars are remembered more in history, but shouldn't we always hope for a president that presides over peace? Do we want a president that became a hawk because they lacked the courage to be a dove?